Katy Perry, Rihanna sign ad attacking Pandora for copyright proposal

Industry-funded ad urges Congress not to "gut" royalties for music streaming.

More than 100 prominent musicians have signed an open letter attacking the Internet Radio Fairness Act. The legislation would change the process used to set royalties for online music streaming services, making it comparable to the process used to set rates for satellite music services.

"Pandora's principal asset is the music," reads the full-page ad in Billboard magazine. It's signed by Rihanna, Billy Joel, Katy Perry, Pink Floyd, Ludacris, and dozens of other performers. "Why is the company asking Congress once again to step in and gut the royalties that thousands of musicians rely upon?"

The answer, supporters say, is that the current regime discriminates harshly against online streaming services. Terrestrial radio broadcasters pay no royalties at all to recording artists. Satellite music services turn over about 10 percent of their revenues to copyright holders, while Internet broadcasters like Pandora are forced to pay about half their revenue in licensing fees. The company wants to change copyright rules so that the same rules—and, presumably similar rates—apply to both online and satellite broadcasters.

In a recent interview with The Hill magazine, Pandora founder Tim Westergren pointed out these high royalty rates have forced most online streaming services out of business. AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft have all been forced to shutter music streaming services. And while Pandora has managed to survive so far, it says its high royalty rates call into question whether it will ever achieve durable profitability.

"It's kind of a Jekyll-and-Hyde business," Westergren told The Hill. "On the growth side, it's been a wonderful story. Profitability is a different story for us. We're really struggling to make that happen."

Dueling reforms

The Pandora-backed proposal is sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), one of Congress's most consistent foes of the recording industry on copyright issues. It also enjoys support from public interest groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge.

Wyden's proposal would not directly change the royalty rates on Internet streaming. Those are set every five years by a special three-judge panel. EFF's Mitch Stolz writes that "for satellite and cable radio, the judges set prices to give the labels and artists a 'fair return' and the music service a 'fair income.'" In practice, that has meant satellite music services are required to pay copyright holders about 10 percent of their revenues.

In contrast, for online music streaming, "the judges are supposed to set rates based on what a 'willing buyer and a willing seller' would do in an open market." The problem is that, thanks in part to this judge-driven process for setting royalty rates, there isn't a competitive market for online streaming rights. So, Stolz says, "judges have set Internet radio royalty rates at cripplingly high levels," forcing Congress to periodically step in to save webcasters from financial ruin.

Wyden, supported by Pandora and other online broadcasters, wants the rules changed so that online streaming rates are set using the same legal standards used for satellite broadcasting. They argue this will allow the creation of a healthy, sustainable online music business.

The recording industry would like to see "reform" in the opposite direction—dramatically raising the rates that would be paid by satellite and terrestrial radio. Legislation sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) would equalize royalty rules, but it would do so by extending the "willing buyer and a willing seller" standard that currently only applies online to the satellite and terrestrial radio markets. Satellite broadcasters would pay rates at the much higher Internet level, and it would force terrestrial radio stations, for the first time, to start paying royalties to recording artists.

Unsurprisingly, the National Association of Broadcasters is strongly opposed.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

So SiriusXM and terrestrial radio can be on the internet too, and only pay 0-10% licensing fees for a song, but it's wrong for Pandora to complain about forking over 50% for the exact same song? Have these artists lost their minds? And I'm sure Rihanna and Katy Perry would be TOTALLY struggling to survive if it was reduced to match satellite fees.Ditch the RIAA and you won't have these issues...

Because nothing says copyright expert like Katy Perry and Rihanna, and how the fuck can they justify putting Pink Floyd on there? 2 of the 5 members are dead and the bands been broken up since 1995 except for their small 2005 reunion.

I'm not sure whats more corrupt, our presidential race or the music industry...

Just guessing, I am pretty sure these two artist's positions on this didn't come after any kind of legal research or insightful philosophical musing on their part. If they devoted any brain cells to this at all, I would be surprised.

Dammit, just meet in the middle, shutup about your money grab and let me listen to the damn music without my platform and artist(s) of choice going bankrupt. I need BOTH of you to make that pretty music for my ears.

I do kind of see their points, a bit. neither of the other services mentioned are interactive - you'll listen to whatever it is they play. And what they play is pretty set - they don't play through full albums, but usually just the singles.

Streaming services are basically big radio stations where you set the terms of what you listen to. If most people buy into this, it'd undoubtedly be a much bigger deal with regards to album sales.

basically yeah, music companies, all bastards etc, but it's not exactly comparing like with like.

Mind you, how do netflix manage their business? their streaming model is reasonably similar and they're loaded! ish.

So SiriusXM and terrestrial radio can be on the internet too, and only pay 0-10% licensing fees for a song, but it's wrong for Pandora to complain about forking over 50% for the exact same song? Have these artists lost their minds? And I'm sure Rihanna and Katy Perry would be TOTALLY struggling to survive if it was reduced to match satellite fees.Ditch the RIAA and you won't have these issues...

Ditch the RIAA and you have no one protecting your interests from predatory businesses (or predatory "consumers").

As an artist whose music is streaming on Spotify, I can tell you that the amount of money I make from streaming services based outside the US is an insult and the only reason I allow my music to be on the service is that the only other option I have in the modern world is to have it stolen. I'd rather make a dollar than nothing.

50% royalty seems reasonable to me. Go into a brick-and-mortar store and ask them what their profit margin on their products is. An electronics retailer or a video game or music store will probably tell you 10-15%. A place selling high-end art or stereo equipment, or a clothing retailer or something, will probably tell you 50%. Manufacturers of goods sold through brick-and-mortar stores are generally taking in 50-90% of the revenue from the sale of those products. Why should artists selling their wares over the internet be forced to take 10%?

There's a good reason for radio and satellite radio to have lower royalty rates than streaming sites - they have much higher overhead. It's still too low though.

I'm an independent artist, signed to no label. My music has been streamed over 100,000 times on YouTube from which I haven't seen a penny. Thousands of streams on Spotify have generated revenue for me of about $1. Those streams have translated into *literally* six album sales. Over 100,000 listens = $50.

I do kind of see their points, a bit. neither of the other services mentioned are interactive - you'll listen to whatever it is they play. And what they play is pretty set - they don't play through full albums, but usually just the singles.

Streaming services are basically big radio stations where you set the terms of what you listen to. If most people buy into this, it'd undoubtedly be a much bigger deal with regards to album sales.

basically yeah, music companies, all bastards etc, but it's not exactly comparing like with like.

Mind you, how do netflix manage their business? their streaming model is reasonably similar and they're loaded! ish.

Making both pay the same royalties does seem stupid, but equally having a supposedly viable set rate for internet streaming which isn't viable is also stupid.Which is why the music industry doesn't give a damn and wants to do the stupid thing and charge everyone up the ass to play music so they can shortsightedly make more money, while killing off supporting ancillary businesses which make their artists popular in the first place.

Equalisation isn't the solution, and is an absurd idea for the reasons you set out, but the current internet system is broken and needs fixing.

I really don't think any artists have any idea what they're agreeing to, so I really don't care whether they support or oppose legislation. Someone probably just tossed this to their PA and they told them, "if you sign this you'll make more money" or something. I guess in general I don't think artists are the best people for regular joe's to be listening to on political issues. (Basically a nice way of saying most of those artists are either stupid, greedy, ignorant or a combination of the three)

To be honest, its not the issue of what the % that the artists want, its that there is completely different %'s for what is essentially the same thing, i mean 0 or 10% or 50%??

I stopped supporting the RIAA and MPAA a while ago. I don't like how they try to manage the entire music industry and it reminds me more of mercantilism then capitalism. My opinion, worth a $0.02 adjust for inflation

I get a lot more enjoyment going to live shows near where I live, from small indie bands, and buying their self-made CDs, t-shirts, and other stuff. It is also fun to get to know the band, and also get a wide variety of music (techno, jazz, rap, etc). Frankly, opening up your local paper to the weekend edition is a great way to find all the entertainment you could ever need!

But stuff like this, I don't really support. I understand that artists need to eat, and I support that, but why should so much of my advertising dollars or my personal dollars go to middle men? When I buy a $10.00 CD from a local band, I know the majority of that money is going to them, and that makes me feel like I'm doing a lot more for them!

So SiriusXM and terrestrial radio can be on the internet too, and only pay 0-10% licensing fees for a song, but it's wrong for Pandora to complain about forking over 50% for the exact same song? Have these artists lost their minds? And I'm sure Rihanna and Katy Perry would be TOTALLY struggling to survive if it was reduced to match satellite fees.Ditch the RIAA and you won't have these issues...

Ditch the RIAA and you have no one protecting your interests from predatory businesses.

As an artist whose music is streaming on Spotify, I can tell you that the amount of money I make from streaming services based outside the US is an insult and the only reason I allow my music to be on the service is that the only other option I have in the modern world is to have it stolen. I'd rather make a dollar than nothing.

50% royalty seems reasonable to me. Go into a brick-and-mortar store and ask them what their profit margin on their products is. An electronics retailer or a video game or music store will probably tell you 10-15%. A place selling high-end art or stereo equipment, or a clothing retailer or something, will probably tell you 50%. Manufacturers of goods sold through brick-and-mortar stores are generally taking in 50-90% of the revenue from the sale of those products. Why should artists selling their wares over the internet be forced to take 10%?

There's a good reason for radio and satellite radio to have lower royalty rates than streaming sites - they have much higher overhead. It's still too low though.

I'm an independent artist, signed to no label. My music has been streamed over 100,000 times on YouTube from which I haven't seen a penny. Thousands of streams on Spotify have generated revenue for me of about $1. Those streams have translated into *literally* six album sales. Over 100,000 listens = $50.

This is a broken system that exploits artists.

There are videos of cats sneezing on the YouTube that have more than 100,000 listens. If you've only sold 6 albums from all this work, it sounds like you have next to no fan base.

I don't see how the RIAA has helped you or anyone with their work. They seem, to me, to be completely unnecessary middlemen.

It doesnt occur to them at all that if there were more streamers out there, they might make more money?

Fine, give them what they want. Bring in the same crippling royalties to Satelite and Broadcast radio. When those few that survive move to an all talk format - because its affordable - we'll see then who's a willing buyer, and who's a willing seller.

I love Pandora and do pay for the service. But to be honest, I don't care which way this goes as long as it ends up being fair. I will say this in defense of Pandora though, through that service I have found bands that I actively support. These are bands that are not played on regular radio stations, well at least in the US. I think the worst possible outcome for all involved would be the loss of Internet radio because of unfair barriers to entry created by the government.

The artists are really just pawns of the labels in this case, and with ads like this, they're trying to make get popular opinion on their side. This isn't about giving artists a fair share of the cash - if it is, they'd be much more upset about satellite radio and terrestrial radio. They're not, though, because they control those formats.

Terrestrial radio has been in the pocket of the major labels for ages (see: Payola judgment from a few years back that resulted in barely a wrist slap for the radio stations), and incidentally, there is no royalty fee there. I have a feeling that satellite radio is just a few notches freer than terrestrial radio, hence the 10% fee. Internet radio stations, however, make all sorts of options available to listeners, with the ones of most concern being those that are not major label. I can find all sorts of independent music on Spotify and Pandora, and that's what makes the labels / RIAA mad. The internet cuts into their stranglehold on the music industry.

This isn't and never has been about the artists getting a fair share. They get screwed plenty already. This is about control of the way people hear music, and thus what music they buy. This is about keeping the virtual monopoly that the major labels as a collective had pre-internet. The same struggle is going on with ISPs and throttling. The internet threatens entrenched business models, and the rich companies profiting off of those business models will do everything they can to destroy any innovation that will challenge their domination. Including, in this case, deploying musicians and ads.

So SiriusXM and terrestrial radio can be on the internet too, and only pay 0-10% licensing fees for a song, but it's wrong for Pandora to complain about forking over 50% for the exact same song? Have these artists lost their minds? And I'm sure Rihanna and Katy Perry would be TOTALLY struggling to survive if it was reduced to match satellite fees.Ditch the RIAA and you won't have these issues...

Ditch the RIAA and you have no one protecting your interests from predatory businesses (or predatory "consumers").

As an artist whose music is streaming on Spotify, I can tell you that the amount of money I make from streaming services based outside the US is an insult and the only reason I allow my music to be on the service is that the only other option I have in the modern world is to have it stolen. I'd rather make a dollar than nothing.

50% royalty seems reasonable to me. Go into a brick-and-mortar store and ask them what their profit margin on their products is. An electronics retailer or a video game or music store will probably tell you 10-15%. A place selling high-end art or stereo equipment, or a clothing retailer or something, will probably tell you 50%. Manufacturers of goods sold through brick-and-mortar stores are generally taking in 50-90% of the revenue from the sale of those products. Why should artists selling their wares over the internet be forced to take 10%?

There's a good reason for radio and satellite radio to have lower royalty rates than streaming sites - they have much higher overhead. It's still too low though.

I'm an independent artist, signed to no label. My music has been streamed over 100,000 times on YouTube from which I haven't seen a penny. Thousands of streams on Spotify have generated revenue for me of about $1. Those streams have translated into *literally* six album sales. Over 100,000 listens = $50.

This is a broken system that exploits artists.

The RIAA is the broken system that exploits artists, not businesses that get musicians heard and deliver what the consumer wants. If it was up to the RIAA we'd all still be buying CD's. They've fought tooth and nail against the internet and all emerging technologies instead of doing what is best for their customers - embracing technology and using it to make the artists more money.

So SiriusXM and terrestrial radio can be on the internet too, and only pay 0-10% licensing fees for a song, but it's wrong for Pandora to complain about forking over 50% for the exact same song? Have these artists lost their minds? And I'm sure Rihanna and Katy Perry would be TOTALLY struggling to survive if it was reduced to match satellite fees.Ditch the RIAA and you won't have these issues...

Ditch the RIAA and you have no one protecting your interests from predatory businesses (or predatory "consumers").

As an artist whose music is streaming on Spotify, I can tell you that the amount of money I make from streaming services based outside the US is an insult and the only reason I allow my music to be on the service is that the only other option I have in the modern world is to have it stolen. I'd rather make a dollar than nothing.

50% royalty seems reasonable to me. Go into a brick-and-mortar store and ask them what their profit margin on their products is. An electronics retailer or a video game or music store will probably tell you 10-15%. A place selling high-end art or stereo equipment, or a clothing retailer or something, will probably tell you 50%. Manufacturers of goods sold through brick-and-mortar stores are generally taking in 50-90% of the revenue from the sale of those products. Why should artists selling their wares over the internet be forced to take 10%?

There's a good reason for radio and satellite radio to have lower royalty rates than streaming sites - they have much higher overhead. It's still too low though.

I'm an independent artist, signed to no label. My music has been streamed over 100,000 times on YouTube from which I haven't seen a penny. Thousands of streams on Spotify have generated revenue for me of about $1. Those streams have translated into *literally* six album sales. Over 100,000 listens = $50.

This is a broken system that exploits artists.

You make very cogent points, however your analogies are slightly off IMHO. You aren't selling a durable good (like a CD) online - you're selling a single performance of your song. Quite a difference.

The YouTube situation sucks for you, I agree. However, I see no way to force people to pay to listen to music any more - you are a victim of a mindset established long ago, when the CD was king until the big media companies and electronics industries found that media shifting (Audio DVDs anyone?) was a good way to double or triple revenue, and left the fan base feeling screwed, so when the Internet came along, they said screw you back and started downloading.

It won't be fixed until all artists are compensated DIRECTLY for performances of their works, and even then it won't be what was paid in the past.

Look, everyone seems to want all the various royalty standards to be harmonized. It's obvious who wants the lower rates increased (musicians and labels) and who wants the higher rates decreased (broadcasters, streamers, listeners). Big duh. The musicians, labels, broadcasters, and streamers should all be able to make a living. However, all that money has to come from the listeners. It all comes down to what listeners are willing to pay and who is willing to stay in the business at that rate. Sorry, but I don't have an answer.

The reality is that the music industry in its current form is a dying business model, but I've never believed that artists should assume that they can make a living off of their creations in the first place. The bottom line is that there are non-commercialized, independent artists that make it very well with a smaller, more dedicated following of fans whereas multi-platinum artists like Rihanna have to diversify with clothing lines and other business ventures because their musical talent can't sustain their ridiculous lifestyle choices.

Just because you look good and can hold a tune doesn't entitle you to own a garage full of luxury cars, multiple homes, and four or five businesses.

Mumford and Sons is a very successful group that managed to sign with one of the highest-rated independent labels, make some sound business choices, and combine that with some stellar music (subjective, of course), and you don't see them complaining about their fucking Spotify royalties.

So SiriusXM and terrestrial radio can be on the internet too, and only pay 0-10% licensing fees for a song, but it's wrong for Pandora to complain about forking over 50% for the exact same song? Have these artists lost their minds? And I'm sure Rihanna and Katy Perry would be TOTALLY struggling to survive if it was reduced to match satellite fees.Ditch the RIAA and you won't have these issues...

Ditch the RIAA and you have no one protecting your interests from predatory businesses (or predatory "consumers").

As an artist whose music is streaming on Spotify, I can tell you that the amount of money I make from streaming services based outside the US is an insult and the only reason I allow my music to be on the service is that the only other option I have in the modern world is to have it stolen. I'd rather make a dollar than nothing.

50% royalty seems reasonable to me. Go into a brick-and-mortar store and ask them what their profit margin on their products is. An electronics retailer or a video game or music store will probably tell you 10-15%. A place selling high-end art or stereo equipment, or a clothing retailer or something, will probably tell you 50%. Manufacturers of goods sold through brick-and-mortar stores are generally taking in 50-90% of the revenue from the sale of those products. Why should artists selling their wares over the internet be forced to take 10%?

There's a good reason for radio and satellite radio to have lower royalty rates than streaming sites - they have much higher overhead. It's still too low though.

I'm an independent artist, signed to no label. My music has been streamed over 100,000 times on YouTube from which I haven't seen a penny. Thousands of streams on Spotify have generated revenue for me of about $1. Those streams have translated into *literally* six album sales. Over 100,000 listens = $50.

This is a broken system that exploits artists.

Uh huh... the same system that manages to get you 100k views on YouTube when you would normally be just another obscure indie artist with the thousands of other indie artists is clearly to blame here. Your failure to turn your "craft" into revenue is not the fault of the content delivery system because if there was no internet and no YouTube, you'd sound pretty ridiculous for blaming the 'CD' for not generating you more then $50.

I'm an independent artist, signed to no label. My music has been streamed over 100,000 times on YouTube from which I haven't seen a penny. Thousands of streams on Spotify have generated revenue for me of about $1. Those streams have translated into *literally* six album sales. Over 100,000 listens = $50.

This is a broken system that exploits artists.

And how are you determining that stream -> sale translation? I don't use Spotify but I use Pandora and Rhapsody on a pretty much constant basis and pay for both. I've come across new artists that I really enjoy, so I buy their music, but I don't buy it from a buy link on Pandora or Rhapsody. So unfortunately for those artists, they see the sale, but there's no way for them to realize that the sale came from their music being streamed.

And for those 6 album sales that you say came directly from spotify streaming conversion, how does that compare to how many albums you've sold overall, or from other sources?

I do kind of see their points, a bit. neither of the other services mentioned are interactive - you'll listen to whatever it is they play. And what they play is pretty set - they don't play through full albums, but usually just the singles.

Streaming services are basically big radio stations where you set the terms of what you listen to. If most people buy into this, it'd undoubtedly be a much bigger deal with regards to album sales.

basically yeah, music companies, all bastards etc, but it's not exactly comparing like with like.

Mind you, how do netflix manage their business? their streaming model is reasonably similar and they're loaded! ish.

Why ar they demanding Pandora pay MORE than what SiriusXM does for the same damn thing? Sorry but these artists are being douchebags. Worse they aren't complaining about how their own labels are cheating them.

Just guessing, I am pretty sure these two artist's positions on this didn't come after any kind of legal research or insightful philosophical musing on their part. If they devoted any brain cells to this at all, I would be surprised.

I would be surprised if Katy Perry and Rihanna devote brain cells to anything at all.

So SiriusXM and terrestrial radio can be on the internet too, and only pay 0-10% licensing fees for a song, but it's wrong for Pandora to complain about forking over 50% for the exact same song? Have these artists lost their minds? And I'm sure Rihanna and Katy Perry would be TOTALLY struggling to survive if it was reduced to match satellite fees.Ditch the RIAA and you won't have these issues...

Ditch the RIAA and you have no one protecting your interests from predatory businesses (or predatory "consumers").

As an artist whose music is streaming on Spotify, I can tell you that the amount of money I make from streaming services based outside the US is an insult and the only reason I allow my music to be on the service is that the only other option I have in the modern world is to have it stolen. I'd rather make a dollar than nothing.

50% royalty seems reasonable to me. Go into a brick-and-mortar store and ask them what their profit margin on their products is. An electronics retailer or a video game or music store will probably tell you 10-15%. A place selling high-end art or stereo equipment, or a clothing retailer or something, will probably tell you 50%. Manufacturers of goods sold through brick-and-mortar stores are generally taking in 50-90% of the revenue from the sale of those products. Why should artists selling their wares over the internet be forced to take 10%?

There's a good reason for radio and satellite radio to have lower royalty rates than streaming sites - they have much higher overhead. It's still too low though.

I'm an independent artist, signed to no label. My music has been streamed over 100,000 times on YouTube from which I haven't seen a penny. Thousands of streams on Spotify have generated revenue for me of about $1. Those streams have translated into *literally* six album sales. Over 100,000 listens = $50.

This is a broken system that exploits artists.

Wow! I really don't think you have a clue. I've been in the business for over 30 years and after eliminating the RIAA from the equation I've experienced more money in my pocket and more creative freedom. The RIAA treats you like a slave.

So SiriusXM and terrestrial radio can be on the internet too, and only pay 0-10% licensing fees for a song, but it's wrong for Pandora to complain about forking over 50% for the exact same song? Have these artists lost their minds? And I'm sure Rihanna and Katy Perry would be TOTALLY struggling to survive if it was reduced to match satellite fees.Ditch the RIAA and you won't have these issues...

Ditch the RIAA and you have no one protecting your interests from predatory businesses (or predatory "consumers").

That would imply the RIAA is actually protecting anything besides the interest of the music labels' big wigs.Or that the RIAA is not a predatory business in itself...

Ditch the RIAA and you have no one protecting your interests from predatory businesses (or predatory "consumers").

As a musician who also hasn't seen much in the way of profit (I'd love like hell to break even), your anger is directed entirely at the wrong source.

The RIAA is not, and never has been, protecting you from anything. The RIAA only cares about their clients, who are the major labels. If you're a musician on a major label, they don't care about you. If you're a indie label, or a musician on an indie, or just plain independent, they do not care about you. They are not protecting you. At all.

Also, to contest your point, there are other organizations that help you get royalties for your music: BMI and ASCAP. Maybe you should sign up with one if you haven't already.

Additionally, if you were on a music label, they, presumably, would go to bat for you.

Quote:

50% royalty seems reasonable to me. Go into a brick-and-mortar store and ask them what their profit margin on their products is. An electronics retailer or a video game or music store will probably tell you 10-15%. A place selling high-end art or stereo equipment, or a clothing retailer or something, will probably tell you 50%. Manufacturers of goods sold through brick-and-mortar stores are generally taking in 50-90% of the revenue from the sale of those products. Why should artists selling their wares over the internet be forced to take 10%?

Because if the realities of internet radio mean that a 50% royalty rate will drive absolutely all business into extinction - as, apparently, a 50% royalty rate has almost done to internet radio - then it's not reasonable. This should be a given. If you squeeze it until it dies, you're not left with a minimum of profit, you're left with no profit.

Quote:

There's a good reason for radio and satellite radio to have lower royalty rates than streaming sites - they have much higher overhead. It's still too low though.

How do you know they have much higher overhead? What determines what's "still too low"? The economic realities of the situation would seem to disagree with you.

Quote:

I'm an independent artist, signed to no label. My music has been streamed over 100,000 times on YouTube from which I haven't seen a penny. Thousands of streams on Spotify have generated revenue for me of about $1. Those streams have translated into *literally* six album sales. Over 100,000 listens = $50.

I hate to break this to you, but you're a terrible businessman. It's okay - it's pretty common in the music world. I'm pretty shit at it myself. I have the same problem.

You know what you should be doing? Signing up for BMI / ASCAP. Bugging YouTube for royalties. They have programs for this stuff. Signing people up for a mailing list. Trying to get people to buy CDs. Touring. Selling T-Shirts.

Or perhaps you should be getting a label. Let them handle this stuff for you. That's what they exist for.

"If you record it, they will buy" is not a viable business model in the music world. Never has been, and definitely is not now. I wish it were, because all I really want to do is record music. I don't want to pimp it out. I don't want to tour. I don't want to market. But that's the reality of things. You are not going to earn a handsome sum on your money without some business work.

I actually think unifying the cost across all distribution systems might be for the best. The owner of a work should be allowed to dynamically set a royalty rate, and anyone should be free to buy from them at the rate they set. In this fashion, nobody is being unfairly discriminated against, nobody is being given a preference. I recognize the fact that it may be more expensive to distribute across the radio or satellite than across the internet, but I don't really see how this is a problem for the media owners.

Also, having a judge decide what a fair market rate for a industry every N years is just... Good god, that is dumb!

Some people are concerned that you won't have free radio if this is enacted. I say, who cares? Radio currently does not pay royalties, they have the option to play anything they want, and what do we end up with? 99% top 40 stations. What is the point of subsidizing these things? Get music off of the radio, let people find a better use for it. I would rather radio be re-purposed to talk radio or free classical music than continuing a state supported monopoly for the top 40s.

Also, as a added bonus, forcing radio to pay royalties would probably allow for the end of conglomerates like ClearChannel.

Win Win. Let people set whatever royalty rate they want for things they own, but inform them that they must then allow ANYONE and EVERYONE to purchase at that rate, no exceptions, no provisions, no special deals. Simple, solved.